Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 238

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A meta-analysis of studies of dietary fat and breast cancer risk

Open access
Boyd, NF, Martin, LJ, Noffel, M, Lockwood, GA, Trichler, DL·1993·British Journal of Cancer

Abstract

There is strong evidence that breast cancer risk is influenced by environmental factors, and animal experiments and human ecological data suggest that increased dietary fat intake increases the incidence of the disease. Epidemiological evidence on the relationship of dietary fat to breast cancer from cohort and case control studies has however been inconsistent. To examine the available evidence we have carried out a meta-analysis to summarise quantitatively the large published literature on dietary fat in the aetiology of breast cancer. After assembling all of the published case control and cohort studies, we extracted the relative risk in each study that compared the highest to the lowest level of intake. We then calculated a summary relative risk for all studies. The summary relative risk for the 23 studies that examined fat as a nutrient was 1.12 (95% CI 1.04-1.21). Cohort studies had a summary relative risk of 1.01 (95% CI 0.90-1.13) and case control studies a relative risk of 1.21 (95% CI 1.10-1.34). Summary estimates of risk for specific types of fat excluded unity for only saturated fat. For the 19 studies that examined food intake, the summary relative risks were 1.18 (95% CI 1.06-1.32) for meat, 1.17 (95% CI 1.04-1.31) for milk, and 1.17 (95% CI 1.02-1.36) for cheese. Summary relative risks for total fat intake were examined for several potential modifying factors. Regression analysis showed that European studies were more likely than studies done in other countries to show an increased relative risk associated with dietary fat and breast cancer, after taking into account potential modifying factors that included study design and quality.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/bjc.1993.398

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 238

Metadata

Authors
Boyd, N., Martin, L., Noffel, M., Lockwood, G., & Trichler, D.
Venue
British Journal of Cancer
Published
1993-09
Volume
68
Issue
3
Pages
627-636
ISSN
  • 0007-0920 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-1827
OpenAlex
W1996579191
Cited by
238
References
3
FWCI
0.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A meta-analysis of studies of dietary fat and breast cancer risk. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/bjc.1993.398
The paper
Boyd, N., Martin, L., Noffel, M., Lockwood, G., & Trichler, D. (1993). A meta-analysis of studies of dietary fat and breast cancer risk. British Journal of Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.1993.398

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.